On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:15:24PM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2018-05-03 18:59 GMT+03:00 Otto Moerbeek :
> > Yes, looks good from reading. But all te extra checks before calling
> > free can go. That's idiom from a *long* time ago.
>
> Like that? I've checked all free() calls
2018-05-03 18:59 GMT+03:00 Otto Moerbeek :
> Yes, looks good from reading. But all te extra checks before calling
> free can go. That's idiom from a *long* time ago.
Like that? I've checked all free() calls in libkvm.
I've also added zeroing of vmst field in mips64 code, like
On Thu, 03 May 2018 17:59:39 +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Yes, looks good from reading. But all te extra checks before calling
> free can go. That's idiom from a *long* time ago.
There is more cleanup that can be done in this code. For example,
the use of 0 instead of NULL. But that can be a
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:19:01AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2018 13:58:35 +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>
> > Here is patch for libkvm that fixes a few memory handling problems.
> > Most changes are mechanical, with some exceptions:
> >
> > 1. Most notable: this splits argv
On Thu, 03 May 2018 13:58:35 +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> Here is patch for libkvm that fixes a few memory handling problems.
> Most changes are mechanical, with some exceptions:
>
> 1. Most notable: this splits argv buffer into argv-specific one
> and environ-specific one. This makes ps
2018-05-02 16:54 GMT+03:00 Todd C. Miller :
> On Tue, 01 May 2018 13:35:54 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
>> > b) Their working space should be independent of each other. This
>> > isn't hard, just splitting kd->argbuf into kd->argbuf and
>> > kd->envbuf. Seems a
On Tue, 01 May 2018 13:35:54 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> > b) Their working space should be independent of each other. This
> > isn't hard, just splitting kd->argbuf into kd->argbuf and
> > kd->envbuf. Seems a bit saner.
> >
>
> I think (b) would be the better solution, this seems
Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2018-05-01 21:53 GMT+03:00 Theo de Raadt :
> > ktrace makes the problem more clear:
> >
> > 25908 ps CALL
> > sysctl(1.55.75675.1,0xed0cc78,0x7f7cd3d8,0,0)
> > 25908 ps RET sysctl -1 errno 14 Bad address
>
2018-05-01 21:53 GMT+03:00 Theo de Raadt :
> ktrace makes the problem more clear:
>
> 25908 ps CALL
> sysctl(1.55.75675.1,0xed0cc78,0x7f7cd3d8,0,0)
> 25908 ps RET sysctl -1 errno 14 Bad address
And that's it, thanks!
Now little ps(1) is happy. But
ktrace makes the problem more clear:
25908 ps CALL
sysctl(1.55.75675.1,0xed0cc78,0x7f7cd3d8,0,0)
25908 ps RET sysctl -1 errno 14 Bad address
Hi all.
So I finally got bored of ps not displaying command args when "-e" is
present. Yes, ps(1) is broken: compare end of lines in output of "ps
-ww" and "ps -eww". And IIRC it behaves this way long enough, but I
always thought that it's me not missing something in ps(1) manual. Bad
zhuk@.
11 matches
Mail list logo